Date of Publication:
Ellen S. Podgor, May Venue under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1519 Be Premised Solely on Contemplated Effects? (25-5146), 53 Preview of United States Supreme Court Cases 20 (2026)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Darryl Wilson, Keeping Current – Property, 40 Probate and Property 16 (2026)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Ellen S. Podgor, Book Review, Quiet Counsel: Looking Back on a Life of Service to the Law (Rev. of Larry D. Thompson book), Champion 55 (2026)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Alicia Jackson, Racial Literacy, Book Bans, and The Miseducation of Critical Race Theory, Md. L. Rev. (2026)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Anthony Palermo, Data Breaches, Causation, and Constitutional Standing, 21 FIU L. Rev. (2026)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
This Article examines the causation requirement of Article III standing in modern data breach litigation. It argues that federal courts have systematically diluted constitutional limits on judicial power by presuming traceability where none exists. While data breaches are ubiquitous and alarming, the Article contends that the mere occurrence of a breach--and even an injury--should not itself establish a justiciable case or controversy. Drawing on foundational separation-of-powers principles, the Article situates the standing doctrine as an essential mechanism of judicial self-restraint--one that prevents courts from reflexively adjudicating societal fears untethered from any fair attribution to the defendant before the court.
Date of Publication:
Royal C. Gardner, Wetlands Regulation in the United States, 10 Sarovar 15 (2026)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Rebecca C. Morgan, Failing Aging: Congress, the Social Contract, and “Saving” Social Security and Medicare, 17 Journal of Aging, Law, and Policy (2026)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Social Security and Medicare are part of the retirement security social contract the government has with the American people, but without action from Congress, Trustees of Social Security and Medicare predict shortfalls within the next decade. This Essay begins with a look at the social contract generally, then as applied to Social Security and Medicare. Focusing on Social Security, the Essay explores the reasons for the creation of Social Security and its foundational importance to Americans of all ages, the economy, and social policy. The Essay examines the promises made by various U.S. presidents to the American people, arguing that those promises create an obligation to the American people and are not just political posturing. After examining the addition of Medicare to the retirement security social policy, the Essay considers the forces contributing to the coming shortfalls, including how prior administrations had responded, and argues that when Congress makes changes to the programs, Congress must be guided by the purposes and principles of the programs and the social contract between the government and the people.
Date of Publication:
Anne E. Mullins, Asymmetric Legitimacy, Fla. L. Rev. (2026)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Anthony Palermo, Data Breaches and Article III, 78 Fla. L. Rev. (2026)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Cyberattacks, hacks, and data leaks dominate news headlines and federal court dockets. Due to the proliferation of data breaches in the modern digital economy, an entire industry dedicated to protecting our electronic identities has emerged.
The law has not caught up with these realities. Constitutional standing requires a plaintiff to demonstrate an injury, actual or imminent, caused by the defendant. Despite their growing recognition of the significance of electronic personal information, courts struggle to evaluate standing in data breach cases. Federal appellate courts have shifted positions and adopted conflicting approaches. Afraid of costly litigation and uncertainty stemming from the unsettled state of the law--coupled with the potential exposure to catastrophic damages awards--companies ranging from small businesses to Fortune 500 corporations look to settle lawsuits filed by individuals whose information may have been accessed during a data breach, even when these individuals cannot identify any resulting injury.
This Article considers the circuit split dividing federal courts regarding their power to hear and resolve claims resulting from data breaches. It suggests that the mere existence of a breach fails to present the constitutionally required injury-in-fact to establish that a claim or controversy exists, and that courts should refuse to hear cases that cannot demonstrate a concrete and particular harm. By raising the threshold for judicial inquiry, courts can be spared thousands of frivolous lawsuits--thereby conserving their time and resources and enabling them to provide speedier justice to parties who can actually demonstrate harm.
Date of Publication:
Ashley Krenelka Chase, Rewriting Wright-Reed: The Case for a Statutory Right to Internet Access for Incarcerated Individuals, 48 Cardozo L. Rev. (2026)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Existing constitutional doctrine on prisoners' rights to information and access to courts is increasingly undermined by the migration of legal, educational, and civic life to digital platforms that prisoners cannot reach. Against the backdrop of the Wright-Reed litigation over exploitative prison phone rates and the subsequent 2022 Martha Wright-Reed Just and Reasonable Communications Act, this Article traces how deregulation, exclusive dealing, and revenue-sharing commissions created a carceral communications market that systematically overcharges incarcerated people and their families, and how recent FCC efforts to cap rates have been weakened by waivers and deference to sheriffs and corrections officials.
This regime of "digital punishment" now extends beyond telephony to near-total internet exclusion, enforced both through formal bans and through harsh disciplinary responses to unauthorized digital access, despite growing evidence that digital literacy, online education, and sustained family contact reduce recidivism and facilitate reentry. Drawing on comparative examples from Europe and international human rights instruments, this Article argues that secure, monitored internet access in prisons is administratively feasible, consistent with legitimate security concerns, and increasingly recognized as integral to human dignity and equal participation in contemporary society. The next evolution of prisoners’ communication rights should come through federal legislation: an amendment to the Martha Wright-Reed Act that recognizes internet access as a protected communications service, mandates just and reasonable pricing subject to FCC rate regulation, and requires correctional systems to provide meaningful, monitored internet access—particularly for legal research, education, and family communication—so that incarcerated people are not permanently consigned to digital exile.